Posted on 08/02/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by BP2
My first take is that the dates DO match up for 1964 events surrounding the Obama's 1964 divorce.
Here we go:
Ann filed for Divorce Jan. 20, 1964 (Inauguration Day – what are the odds?), and the date was set by the presiding judge for the trial to commence 30 days after Obama SR would have responded to his notification, sent to Cambridge, Mass (Cambridge – what are the odds? ).
Judge Samuel P. King who granted the divorce – last I heard was retired and alive (for now) in his 90s in Hawaii -- MAY or MAY NOT have asked to see the Marriage Certificate. BUT, I bet Judge King asked to see Obama JR's Birth Certificate to confirm Ann's claims that Obama SR was in fact the father. That is “standard” policy to have a Birth Certificate in case the mother asks for child support from the father (or Welfare) later after the divorce. Judge King probably told Ann to produce a birth certificate before or at trial, which would have been sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 HAD Obama SR answered his notice that was sent to Cambridge.
When Judge King wrote the order on Jan. 23, he had his clerk notify Obama SR via what's referred to as a "knock and nail". That is, the postman leaves the notification on the door for (generally) 10 days and retrieves it after that time passes -- signed or unsigned. That order was sent on Jan. 23 via airmail from Hawaii and was probably posted on Obama SR's door Jan. 27-28.
Obama SR's notification was unsigned by him and apparently IGNORED -- either he didn't want to accept it OR he was NOT at that location.
However, Judge King granted the divorce to Ann Obama (which changed back to Ann Dunham) exactly 60 days from when the original order was request by Ann by default.
NOW, my guess is that Judge King asked to see Obama JR’s Birth Certificate before he'd be willing to grant the divorce, either at trial or by default on March 20, 1964. Ann probably didn’t have the birth certificate when she filed on Jan 20. That's when this birth certificate would have been generated -- before trial for the 1964 divorce.
Important side note: the Certificate issue date of Feb 17, 1964, is JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS AFTER KENYA BECAME INDEPENDENT on Dec. 12, 1963. TO THIS DATE, this may be the only certificate on Kenyan file today if British documents were sent to the UK for archiving leading up Kenya becoming an independent nation.
If you note the date on the Certified Copy, it was created by the Registrar in Kenya on Feb. 17, 1964. The Kenyan Birth Certificate would have been issued in the midst of the divorce -- AFTER the divorce was filed by Ann in Hawaii on Jan. 20, but BEFORE the divorce was granted by Judge King on March 20.
Furthermore, it's quite plausible that once Ann actually had this Kenyan birth certificate in her hands, and the divorce was granted on March 20, her attorney, George Kerr, counseled her on Hawaiian birth certificate "loopholes" and told her how to file for a Hawaiian "Certificate of Delayed Birth" to get Welfare or OTHER support for young Obama as a child of a non-supporting foreign national.
As Hawaiian law allows, that CODB could have been "converted" later to a “Certificate of Live Birth” (long birth certificate) in the 60s or 70s, which would then be a "root document" of the famed “Certification of Live Birth” (short birth certificate on "Fight the Smears") we see today presented as "proof" of birth of Barack Hussein Obama II, reportedly in Hawaii (note: the abstract “Certification of Live Birth” certificate did not exist in Hawaii until November 2001).
I can’t personally vouch for the veracity of the Kenyan birth certificate itself, not knowing how or from whom Orly obtained the birth certificate (the chain of evidence). It may have been obtained quite surreptitiously from the only filed Kenyan birth certificate record copy requested -- likely generated from the 1964 divorce.
It's QUITE possible that all other copies of this Kenyan birth certificate may have been scrubbed from Kenyan archives, but this one may have survived in a lone Vital Statistics office somewhere in Kenya not known about until now.
Placemarker and bookmarked. Outstanding!
Don't the NORKs call themselves a republic?
Republic is just a common word. It's use is NOT governed by a "use of the word republic police" that go around the globe preventing nation states from calling themselves a republic.
I still think this may be a VALID BC.
I wouldn’t put too much weight on ‘Republic’ being pre-printed letterhead thingy ruining it. It was only months later that they did officially become the Republic, but Kenya was ballyhooing the upcoming Republic.
I'd say it's a toss-up.
Kenya ceased being a Dominion on December 12, 1963, when they gained independence from Great Britain. But they didn't officially become a Republic until December 12, 1964.
In between, Jomo Kenyatta was named PM at the time of independence and was formally elected to the office in May, 1964 -- when the populace also chose to become a Republic.
Kenyatta was then installed as President and the Republic formally declared on December 12, 1964.
I suspect that, after December 12, 1963, Kenyan officialdom scrapped every form that identified the country as dependent on Great Britain. Then, it's conceivable that, for the intervening year, they chose to re-label the official documents "Republic of Kenya" -- even though it wasn't yet technically so.
After all, "Kenya, a third world work in progress" wouldn't have done...
President Biden? Sh*t!
i suspect he goes down with the ship.
wouldn’t orly and wnd have already researched this?
freepers were able to do this and if that “Republic” designation sinks this, orly is looking foolish.
“Stand upchuck”
PING BABY
“Even though Kenya may have their end of the records under tight security up in Britain its probably available for the asking.”
I suggested this about 1½ years ago and again a few months ago. No one was listening.
Since they were British subjects, all the vital stats were probably boxed up and sent to Britain.
Right or wrong, I drew my conclusion from our experience here in the Canal Zone. A couple of months before the Canal Zone was given to Panama, all our vital stats were boxed up and sent to Washington DC. The address is no secret. Neither is the one in Britain for the British. I looked it up, and I believe I passed it on....maybe not. I can’t be sure now. All it takes is a google search for addresses.
Initially, I would agree that the designation of Repbublic of Kenya raises some real questions about the authenticity of the document, however, we would really need some additional information on when the letterhead changed on official documents and what was used in the interim between independence and when the constitution was amended, i.e., June 1964.
Thanks. I suppose other supporting documentation from this ERA is essential and it ought to be plentiful. The One’s minions couldn’t have retrieved irrelevant documents numbering in the thousands from this time period and scrubbed them.
How are those mangos? ;)
People who have filed FOIA requests with federal or state governments often find that the request is only partially satisfied. Bureaucrats tend to be "anal-retentive" and devise many reasons for not allowing inspection of parts of records, not necessarily in compliance with the applicable law. I would tend to doubt that the state bureaucrats who responded to the request re the Hawaii divorce case allowed the complete file to be disclosed. So there is a reasonable possibility that some baby O birth document is still in the file, under lock and key for 45 years.
Maybe Sammy Korir may come through after all. lol
The story was that they were working the fake BC over for an extended period of time with ultraviolet radiation and moisture. Again, I don’t know if this is true.
The problem with forensic analysis is to come up with experts you can trust. Now, who could you trust to analyze Obama’s birth certificate? The FBI? No doubt experts could be found who were not already suborned, but then other experts would be found to testify that it was real.
I agree with you that it’s likely impossible to make an analysis-proof forgery, but we’re in a position where finding impartial analysis is difficult, and getting the word out is also difficult.
So, we see how this plays out.
I’m looking at stamps, old newspapers from Jan-April, and the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. Kenyans won their first gold in August of that year.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
1. It is authentic.
2. It is a fabrication, prepared by an anti-Obama zealot who is decidedly more skilled than was Bill Burkett (the kook who was the source of Dan Rather's career disaster).
3. It is a fabrication, prepared by a pro-Obama zealot (or confederate of Obama) who wishes to discredit the birthers. I would imagine that William Ayers, for example, has access to several capable document manufacturers -- based on his two decades of underground existence.
We'd all best not get carried away until we, in fact, know #1 is actually the correct answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.